· Public charity
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Our mission at HOUSING TRUST SILICON VALLEY, is to use transformative housing finance and public and private partnerships to create more equitable and affordable communities.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2025.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
The 7 grants below total $313,783 — the rows itemised in this filing. The $322,874 headline is the total grant expense reported on the return, so the remaining $9,091 is giving the schedule does not break out: grants under the $5,000 itemisation floor, grants to individuals, and grants reported on other schedules. Every figure below describes the itemised rows only.
By grant size · FY2025
- $10k–50k2 grants · $64k
- $50k–250k5 grants · $250k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| BLACK CULTURAL ZONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION | $50,000 |
| COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF NORTH RICHMOND | $50,000 |
| RICHMOND NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES INC | $50,000 |
| SPANISH SPEAKING UNITY COUNCIL OF ALAMEDA COUNTY INC | $50,000 |
| SCHOOL OF ARTS AND CULTURE AT MHP | $50,000 |
| SACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE | $38,783 |
| YES ON 5 CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFE AFFORDABLE COMMUNITIES | $25,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–25, $1.2M) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 31% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Your grants skew toward lower-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +120% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
5 repeat relationships — 0 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 7 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2025, 0% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $314k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- BWBILL WILSON CENTER3× · 2017–2021 · $577k · revenue +120%
- SCSOUTH COUNTY COMPASSION CENTER2× · 2018–2019 · $190k · revenue +591% · 58% of their budget
- CHCHARITIES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY2× · 2021–2024 · $160k · revenue +36%
Funded once
- NANPH Action Fundone grant, 2024 · $300k · revenue 0%
- HCHopes Corner Incone grant, 2019 · $240k · revenue -7% · 26% of their budget
- PPATHone grant, 2023 · $61k · revenue +10%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
The Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco is dedicated to combating the displacement crisis gripping our city by building the power of working-class tenants of color to take on the real estate industry and win housing justice for all.…
Homes for Sonoma is a nonprofit developer creating quality workforce housing options that support safe and sustainable community, and finds efficient, scalable solutions to address the housing crisis in Sonoma County and throughout…
Promote public understanding of policies supporting the creation of well-designed, well-located housing at all levels of affordability for residents of the Bay Area, California.
Improve the quality of life for individuals in Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Solano County, Monterey County, Sacramento County and the surrounding area in the State of California.
Community Housing Sonoma County creates supportive housing communities for people living with disabling conditions, especially veterans.
To improve and restore district-wide neighborhoods for the benefit of the residents.
The Organization is a citywide collaborative of housing counseling agencies that helps diverse and underserved households achieve and sustain homeownership in San Francisco.
Development of affordable housing
The specific purpose of Housing Help of San Diego (HHOSD) is to provide supportive services and tailored solutions with a goal of obtaining and maintaining affordable housing.
The California Housing Partnership Corporation creates and preserves affordable and sustainable homes for Californians with low incomes by providing expert financial and policy solutions to nonprofit and public partners.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Family Supportive Housing Inc and the most unlike its peers is Hopes Corner Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
18 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 18 of the 21 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds SV HOME ↗
- Who funds BILL WILSON CENTER ↗
- Who funds NPH Action Fund ↗
- Who funds Hopes Corner Inc ↗
- Who funds SOUTH COUNTY COMPASSION CENTER ↗
- Who funds CHARITIES HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds Silicon Valley Community Foundation ↗
- Who funds PATH ↗
- Who funds ABODE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ↗
- Who funds SPANISH SPEAKING UNITY COUNCIL OF ALAMEDA COUNTY INC ↗
- Who funds BLACK CULTURAL ZONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ↗
- Who funds RICHMOND NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES INC ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP OF NORTH RICHMOND ↗
- Who funds SCHOOL OF ARTS AND CULTURE AT MHP ↗
- Who funds SACRED HEART COMMUNITY SERVICE ↗
- Who funds Californians for Safe and Affordable Housing ↗
- Who funds FAMILY SUPPORTIVE HOUSING INC ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · The Sobrato Family Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Destination Home SV co Silicon Valley Community Foundation · Kaiser Foundation Hospitals · San Jose Mercury News Wish Book Fund Inc · Second Harvest of Silicon Valley · United Way of the Bay Area · Sunlight Giving · Charity Bridge Fund · The David and Lucile Packard Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Housing Trust Silicon Valley funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.